Fubar512

Actually, there was a B-52 pit, it just never made it past the most rudimentary stages.

You do not have to set up a "dummy" vertical stab, Sparky. You just simply add the necessary anti-yaw parameters and their associated tables to the fuselage section. As for yaw control using the "rudderons", well, that's not hard to do. Again, look at existing rudder entries for guidance.

My apologies, CIACHO, seems that I accidentally edited over your last post while attempting to respond to it. Anyway, Assuming the titles are patched to the same level, the aircraftobject.ini is exactly the same. Only FE & WoI currently have a different one, and that's only true until TK brings the rest of the series up to date. The new parameters in WoI and FE will not work in SF/WoV/WoE, as they are not yet incorporated into the aircraftobject.dll in those earlier titles.

Yeah, right...another 30 day expert making erroneous observations http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autoc...si&img=3975

First of all, read through a default 'Xterraintargets.ini" file, and see how the SAM launchers and their supporting radar are arranged (offset-wise). Copy those same offsets and locate them on a suitably flat and empty area in your terrain of choice. The trick with Mobile SAM launchers (Chaparral, Sa-7/8/9/Tunguska/Adats/etc), is to redefine their ground object role from "mobile_sam" to "mobile_AAA", which ensures that they'll be placed everywhere, often in the damnedest locations AAA guns will reach up and ruin your day at 30,000 feet, most notably Pasko's 130 mm KS-30, and the 100 mm KS-19 (which is a default Third Wire ground object). 57 & 37 mm are bad just below 10,000 feet, and 23 mm is more of a nuisance than anything else until you get within 2-3000 feet of it (as you've observed). Of course, if you data link (network) the larger AAA weapons as I've done, you're toast Now, you could have found all this information on your own, by searching through the three SF boards as I had suggested.

I believe that's Marcelo's "Ensign Eliminator", or "Gutless Cutlass".

Watching this video, I cannot help but think "What a dynamite RC model this would make". Imagine showing up at an RC airpark with this puppy.... http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a94_1207919875

Hey Russ....found this in the deepest darkest recesses of my archives. LOL: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?autom...si&img=2513

Well, Crusader agrees with you, I just seem to remember reading about that in Belyenko's book (MiG Pilot), some years ago.

Lexx, I believe that you have the firing order backwards.... AFAIK, Soviet doctrine was to fire one radar missile first, and then an IRM, so as to have the IRM follow the radar missile's heat signature (assuming the intended target was beyond the IRM seeker head's detection range, to begin with). This way (at least in theory), the radar missile would be guided to the target by the launch platform, and if that missile happened to be spoofed by the target's ECM, the IRM would by that time be close enough to acquire the primary target's exhaust signature. In which case, it would stand a fair chance of following it home and achieving a kill.

As stated above, there is no salvo mode for AAMs. Fire one missile, keep the target locked, and follow it up with another. I often employ this method, with good results: Lock up a target on radar, launch a SAHM or AHM at it, and then, follow it up with an all-aspect IRM. The key is maintaing radar lock at all times (at least for the SAHM's sake).

The person that might be able to verify, or to dispute those figures, would be Typhoid.

No man. That was not the point of my reply. If anything, we'd rather encourage someone to delve into the dark side (FM creation), than have them turn away in frustration. The issue I have is with the 4Gs at 200 KIAS, Think about that for a second. That literally implies that an F-14A can execute at least a 2.5-3 G maneuver right off the end of the catapult! Another thing, there's a marked difference between an aircraft's limits and performance when it's practically skosh fuel and unarmed, versus carrying a full bag of fuel and loaded for bear. Another issue is one created by the limitations of the game, itself. Ideally, when working with a variable sweep aircraft, you'd have a set of lift and drag tables for each wing sweep setting. Unfortunately, we're stuck with just one set of applicable values. So, we compensate by taking in all the sweep angles, and arriving at an average. We then create Xac tables with values progressing further aft than we otherwise would, had the aircraft been equipped with a conventional wing* (Also, when dealing with the F-14, one must take into consideration the effect of the glove vanes when they deploy). As a result, one is forced to tailor the FM for (accurate) performance within a narrower flight regime, then would otherwise have been possible, had we been able to incorporate tables for multiple sweep angles. So, you can see the dilemma here, at least from the perspective of realism. Hope this helps...it did little more than confuse the crap out of me... *Note: The unwritten rule of thumb is that the Xac table starts 25-30% of the Mac aft of the leading edge of the surface in question, and extends to (and terminates at) about the mid point of the chord.

Caesar, Please do not take offense, but I find those G@speed figures a bit hard to believe. Do you have any vetifiable sources for them, with tables or graphs, (etc)?

This is the second or third time that you've asked this inappropriate question, and you've been warned about it every time.

Someone just made Sparky's day....

Yes, TK has stated that he will provide patches to bring SF/SFG, WoV & WoE up to the current level of FE & WoI.

Yes, that's what happens in the real world. Show me the MFD's on an F-4, or an A-4, during the early 1970s, when they were capable of dropping early LGBs (BOLT-117-GBU-1/B, GBU-10). The Thanh Hoa (Dragon's Jaw) bridge was dropped on May 13, 1972, using LGBs dropped from F-4s, and again in October of that same year, with LGBs dropped from A-4s. Of course, back then, they relied on having another aircraft lase the target for them.

Really? Then by your logic, carriers and ships don't work in campaigns, right?

Well, you finally got it somewhat right. My experience has been, that the most effective teachers I've had, have always been those that forced one to think for one's self. You do not have to redesignate ships as tanks. There's no need to change the formations (though KillerBee and I did do that a few years ago, forcing ships into battle lines and destroyer screens through formation tweaks). All that's needed, is to simply place a friendly naval unit nearby (a sub, for example). Even if the enemy ships do not attack it, it will still report that it's coming under attack. Then you designate your strike package as "CAS", but with an anti-ship loadout. NOTE: This may not alway work with ASMs that use anti-radiation homing. In that case, try designating them for SEAD, with the aforementioned anti-ship loadout.

No, everything you have must match the host's install. That's why most use an unmodded version for online play. In the story I linked to in my previous post, both USAFMTL and I had the same mods installed

What that tells me is that there are no enemy units available because of a service-date issue. Which game did you install it in?

Check PMs

It's not my knowledge, per say, it's TK's knowledge, and he's already shared it with you. In fact, you took the time and effort to post his reply...and that's where I saw the solution, so, thank you for doing that And that solution works, irregardless of whether it's my flight, or an AI flight that I'm escorting to the (naval) target. If you have WoV, play the Tonkin Gulf mission and listen to the radio chatter....Take your time and think about, and you'll figure it out...